The Bills rebuild with a trade-down after an early run on QB

[McD]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Alright, let me rephrase.  The last draft folks talk about as being rich with multiple qbs (and of course only some worked out) was 1983.  That's 35 years ago.  It is rare to have a draft with 4 or more qbs that might be considered for the first round.  A normal draft has 1 or 2 or actually zero.  We have the draft capital this year, not next year, etc.  

Fair enough, but I'd also be cautious in the hype generated by the media over QB's... the position IS important, the most important on the field, but again I ask if the hype generated is making this years draft class more prolific than it actually is?  Then we "feel" that we "have" to get a QB and we pass up the opportunity to fill numerous roster spots with higher end draft picks.  One good thing is the cap space looks better for us the next few years, so who knows what the plan is.   

[BillsFan17]

Cant wait for the All Pro Hall of Fame LB and that stud CB we have that becomes the face of our defense like Revis was for the Jets... and the Bill's have just have an assembly of high quality players from all the draft picks, but still lack that QB

 

Only to finish 8-8, 9-7, 8-8 before McDermott and Beane are replaced and the next regime is still searching for a QB..

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, McD said:

Fair enough, but I'd also be cautious in the hype generated by the media over QB's... the position IS important, the most important on the field, but again I ask if the hype generated is making this years draft class more prolific than it actually is?  Then we "feel" that we "have" to get a QB and we pass up the opportunity to fill numerous roster spots with higher end draft picks.  One good thing is the cap space looks better for us the next few years, so who knows what the plan is.   

One has to hope that Beane and McD are sound football minds with good judgment.  I presume the hype is for the entertainment of fans.  If the GM gets caught up in that, he won't be good at his job.

[maryland-bills-fan]

27 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Of all the available options ... YES ... the absolute smartest when your goal is to be consistently competitive for a championship.

...and all the other players are all equal on every team, so only the QB matters.

[Boatdrinks]

4 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

...and all the other players are all equal on every team, so only the QB matters.

No, all players are not equal. The QB IS however, the great equalizer. There's no such thing as an NFL team without holes. You plug them as best you can ( ex Eagles had WRs on one year " prove it deals". Can't do that at QB) with FAs etc. You need QB, pass rusher, pass protector and pay the elite ones. All other positions are rotated in and out every couple seasons. That is the new NFL. You don't get to build a perfect team and keep drafted players together for years. That worked in the 80's. 

[Luxy312]

Just now, maryland-bills-fan said:

...and all the other players are all equal on every team, so only the QB matters.

 

Just an ignorant statement.  By your words, every team has a LeSean McCoy.  Every team has an Antonio Brown and a Von Miller.  So many more examples that pointing out the ridiculousness of this statement is almost not even necessary.

[Mojo44]

56 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Let's  look at the stats.  McCoy had 287 attempts and Taylor had 84.    So of those two,  Taylor had 22% of the running plays.    For yardage Taylor had 27% of the running yardage.....................Does that sound like a good recipe for you?

 

 

No.	Player	Age	Pos	G	GS	Att	Yds	TD	Lng	Y/A	Y/G	A/G	Tgt	Rec	Yds	Y/R	TD	Lng	R/G	Y/G	Ctch%	YScm	RRTD	Fmb
25	LeSean McCoy*	29	RB	16	16	287	1138	6	48	4.0	71.1	17.9	77	59	448	7.6	2	39	3.7	28.0	76.6%	1586	8	3
5	Tyrod Taylor	28	QB	15	14	84	427	4	32	5.1	28.5	5.6										427	4	4

 I’m not sure what your point is. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

[maryland-bills-fan]

1 minute ago, Luxy312 said:

 

Just an ignorant statement.  By your words, every team has a LeSean McCoy.  Every team has an Antonio Brown and a Von Miller.  So many more examples that pointing out the ridiculousness of this statement is almost not even necessary.

Take the comment with a grain of salt as sarcasm.

 

[Luxy312]

Just now, maryland-bills-fan said:

Take the comment with a grain of salt as sarcasm.

 

 

I take it with a grain of salt as fantasy and simply a statement that fits your narrative.

[CamboBill]

3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

No, all players are not equal. The QB IS however, the great equalizer. There's no such thing as an NFL team without holes. You plug them as best you can ( ex Eagles had WRs on one year " prove it deals". Can't do that at QB) with FAs etc. You need QB, pass rusher, pass protector and pay the elite ones. All other positions are rotated in and out every couple seasons. That is the new NFL. You don't get to build a perfect team and keep drafted players together for years. That worked in the 80's. 

The Eagles won the Superbowl including most of the 2nd half of last season, the playoffs, and the Super  bowl .... with Nick Foles ... hardly an elite QB.  .... and none of Tom Brady, Case Keenum, oe Matt Ryan proved to be equalizers.

 

Teams win championships .... not individual players.

[longtimebillsfan]

3 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I am amused by all the experts who know about the "can't miss" rookie QB, who can perform miracles without an offensive line, wide receivers or linebackers on defense.  ..... Please remember that or offensive line was bailed out by Taylor's feet and that we have aging ,declining guards, that we lost our starting center and traded away a rotational starting tackle.  Three new faces are needed there................  We have one starting linebacker and need two more.  Somebody from the first two rounds would do.....................  Our wide receivers scare nobody, but Mr. Miracle Quarterback is going to have those guys free down the sidelines for a 50yard gain and shaking loose from coverage over the middle and getting an average 15 yard YAC on every play.  Don't think so.  At least one pick in the first 3 rounds is needed............Oh, did you forget that we lost some people as FA who had "DB" as their position?   Maybe one more pick in the 1st three rounds is needed here...........................................BUT lets ignore all that and trade the first two rounds from this year and next year's first for a 50:50 shot.  Yea, right.

 

With all these needs (six plus a QB = 7) I can not see going in the direction of trading away the draft picks necessary to field a competitive team in order to get a possible star to have wet dreams about.  The games are won in the "trenches".  A cute rookie QB with a broken leg is not good for anything.  I say we should do the following.  Stay at #12 in case the QB that the Bills could live with is available.  If not, they trade down and get your Bart Starr, Jim Kelly or Dan Marion with a later pick.    (with arm twisting, moving up 3-4 spots and losing next year's 2nd rounder would be okay)

 

Here is what we could get with a trade-down from the #12 pick.

 

down to     gets us this overall pick

==============================

#14............100th player  (4th round)

#16.............78th player  (3rd round)

#18............60th player    (2nd round)

#20............55th player

#22.............48th player

#24.............44th player

#26.............40th player

#28.............36th player

#30.............32nd player

#32...............30.5th player (1st round)

.

.

From Walter Football, here is a list of the players in that 30-55 range that we get for "free" by trading down. (I don't agree that all these guys will be available this low, but it gives you the idea).

30.

Equanimeous St. Brown, WR, Notre Dame. Previously: 30 Avg. 23.8 per 30

31.

Marcus Davenport, DE, Texas-San Antonio. Previously: 31 Avg. 31.8 per 10

32.

Baker Mayfield, QB, Oklahoma. Previously: 32 Avg. 42.1 per 17

33.

Christian Kirk, WR, Texas A&M. Previously: 33 Avg. 25.2 per 30

34.

Nick Chubb, RB, Georgia. Previously: 34 Avg. 32.4 per 30

35.

Tim Settle, DT, Virginia Tech. Previously: 35 Avg. 34.6 per 10

36.

James Daniels, C, Iowa. Previously: 36 Avg. 36 per 9

37.

Terrell Edmunds, S, Virginia Tech. Previously: 37 Avg. 37 per 24

38.

Justin Reid, S, Stanford. Previously: 38 Avg. 32.8 per 19

39.

Will Hernandez, G, UTEP. Previously: 39 Avg. 38.9 per 20

40.

Kolton Miller, OT, UCLA. Previously: 40 Avg. 37.4 per 10

41.

Leighton Vander Esch, LB, Boise State. Previously: 41 Avg. 48.8 per 9

42.

D.J. Moore, WR, Maryland. Previously: NR Avg. 0 per 0

43.

Harold Landry, DE, Boston College. Previously: 43 Avg. 32.2 per 30

44.

JC Jackson, CB, Maryland. Previously: 44 Avg. 32.4 per 11

45.

Dorance Armstrong Jr., DE, Kansas. Previously: 45 Avg. 28.1 per 30

46.

Isaiah Wynn, OT, Georgia. Previously: 46 Avg. 46 per 14

47.

Kerryon Johnson, RB, Auburn. Previously: 47 Avg. 46.9 per 17

48.

Sam Hubbard, DE, Ohio State. Previously: 48 Avg. 45.6 per 30

49.

Ronnie Harrison, S, Alabama. Previously: 49 Avg. 29.6 per 30

50.

Jordan Whitehead, S, Pittsburgh. Previously: 50 Avg. 46.1 per 30

51.

R.J. McIntosh, DT, Miami. Previously: 51 Avg. 54.9 per 9

52.

Mark Andrews, TE, Oklahoma. Previously: 52 Avg. 52 per 9

53.

Isaiah Oliver, CB, Colorado. Previously: 53 Avg. 53 per 9

54.

Ronald Jones II, RB, USC. Previously: 54 Avg. 54 per 9

55.

Duke Ejiofor, DE, Wake Forest.

 http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftbigboard#ixzz5BhirZysC

 

A good center,  a good linebacker, a good WR or a  good RB.  You get an extra solid player, probably a starter, for  your effort.     If the best QB shots are gone at #12, build a strong team with those 7 picks and take a QB out of the top 15.

 

 

 

 

This is an amazing dose of reality.   Thank you.   Very well done. 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

...and all the other players are all equal on every team, so only the QB matters.

 

 

Yeah, if you find anyone who had said that, that would have been a terrific response. 

 

In the meantime, though, you'll have to better paraphrase me for me to bother spending time on an answer.

 

EDIT: Boatdrinks said it for me.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, CamboBill said:

The Eagles won the Superbowl including most of the 2nd half of last season, the playoffs, and the Super  bowl .... with Nick Foles ... hardly an elite QB.  .... and none of Tom Brady, Case Keenum, oe Matt Ryan proved to be equalizers.

 

Teams win championships .... not individual players.

 

 

Yup, teams win championships. And about 90% of the teams that do are teams with a QB in the top 10 or 12 QBs in the league.

 

And Philly wouldn't have won the SB without Wentz.

 

Wentz in-season record: 11-2

 

Foles in-season record 2-1 (squeaking by the 3-13 Giants and the 6-10 Raiders and losing to the 9-7 Cowboys by a score of 6-0) and in the LA game they won where Wentz was injured, did they win because of Wentz (23/41, 281 yards, 4 TDs and 1 INT, 31 points scored by the offense in the 3 quarters he played) or Foles (6/10, 42 yards, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, six points - 2 FGs - scored by the offense in the one quarter he was in the game. And one of those field goals came on a 10 yard drive from the LA 25 to the LA 15 after a strip sack on Goff.)

 

 

2 hours ago, CamboBill said:

The difference in this year's draft is that there is no clear cut #1 choice.  you can take the top 5 and pull a name of out of a hat and make an argument for why should be #1.  You do NOT give the farm away in a trade trade up in this scenario.  This is a good QB draft in that it is DEEP ... but it is NOT top heavy.  There are 5 QB prospects that might have big futures and two or three others that might have a shot at being decent starters some day. There is nobody to trade up for ... There is no Wentz or Goff in this draft.   I think we might need to move into the top 8, but there is no need to overpay for #2.  This is fools Gold.

 

 

No.

 

This argument only works in years where there's a major dropoff in talent between, say #1 and #2 or between #2 and #3. A draft in QB isn't deep if it has four QBs go in the top five spots. It's top-heavy. This draft is top-heavy and maybe deep as well with guys like Lauletta and  Rudolph and Falk and so on.

 

When the #4 QB is good enough to go probably 4th or 5th, it doesn't matter whether the players picked before him are QBs or not. It only matters that he's good enough to go at the #4 or #5 spot.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Thurman#1

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

We traded our top OT to get to 12, I highly doubt were trading down but these are the Bills so you never know what stupid move they can do next. I'd like to think we've moved on from the stupid moves and finally getting our QB, looks like this regime agrees. 

[maryland-bills-fan]

1 hour ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:

We traded our top OT to get to 12, I highly doubt were trading down but these are the Bills so you never know what stupid move they can do next. I'd like to think we've moved on from the stupid moves and finally getting our QB, looks like this regime agrees. 

As I've said before, I think the Bills wanted to dump big contracts and aging players ASAP and would take what they got for them.  They have a 3 year? 5 year? plan for getting to be a top team and these guys will not be helping them at that point.. Hence Watkins and Darby and Glenn are gone.  What they got for Glen was an improvement in 1st round draft position.  What for?  For whatever is best for the team. It is not written in stone that the only thing is for moving up for a top QB.   Maybe they might be able to move up a few notches for one of the top QB.  Maybe they stand pat and can also get a top QB at that spot.  Maybe there is a position player (MLB?) to take there. Maybe they trade down and pick up another 1st day draft slot.   I don't know how they rank the top 4-5 QB's, so I would just be guessing.  I think that there is a chance they stay pat and take BPA or even move down to get another pick.   I don't see how they HAVE TO be committed to moving  up to the top five picks. It is not written in stone.  One thing that IS TRUE is that the trades and weaknesses in several positions means there are a lot of holes to fill and that might be what they fix.

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by maryland-bills-fan

[billykay]

6 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

I don't think the broncos would go QB at 5.  The 4th best QB or a top dog pass rusher?  Or even trading down to try and address both pass rush and pass protection.

But someone could move up to 5 to take a QB.

[K-9]

Another "too many other holes" thread?

 

Once again: add up the entire depth of all those other holes on the team. How deep is it? The answer is it doesn't matter because the hole at QB is bottomless. 

[maryland-bills-fan]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Another "too many other holes" thread?

 

Once again: add up the entire depth of all those other holes on the team. How deep is it? The answer is it doesn't matter because the hole at QB is bottomless. 

"The hole is bottomless? ".   McCarron won two college national championships and has played most of 4 games in the NFL.  He has a 93.6 QB rating.   that is not a bottomless hole.

 

[K-9]

31 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

"The hole is bottomless? ".   McCarron won two college national championships and has played most of 4 games in the NFL.  He has a 93.6 QB rating.   that is not a bottomless hole.

 

It's bottomless until you fill it with a QB that can put the franchise on his shoulders for the next 10-15 years. If McCarron is that guy, great but there has been ABSOLUTELY NO indication that he is or even can be at this point. Great college career but not enough to get him qualified as a blue chip, elite talent at the position. 

 

Point is, if you don't have a QB, it doesn't matter how many other holes you fill. 

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

3 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

As I've said before, I think the Bills wanted to dump big contracts and aging players ASAP and would take what they got for them.  They have a 3 year? 5 year? plan for getting to be a top team and these guys will not be helping them at that point.. Hence Watkins and Darby and Glenn are gone.  What they got for Glen was an improvement in 1st round draft position.  What for?  For whatever is best for the team. It is not written in stone that the only thing is for moving up for a top QB.   Maybe they might be able to move up a few notches for one of the top QB.  Maybe they stand pat and can also get a top QB at that spot.  Maybe there is a position player (MLB?) to take there. Maybe they trade down and pick up another 1st day draft slot.   I don't know how they rank the top 4-5 QB's, so I would just be guessing.  I think that there is a chance they stay pat and take BPA or even move down to get another pick.   I don't see how they HAVE TO be committed to moving  up to the top five picks. It is not written in stone.  One thing that IS TRUE is that the trades and weaknesses in several positions means there are a lot of holes to fill and that might be what they fix.

 

 

And what is the next 17 year plan with fillers and retread QBs? It hasn't worked out, time to draft and develop our own. I think this coaching staff can hide a few of the positions but you cannot hide a QB.

[Elite Poster]

10 hours ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Current QBs plus one in the draft.

 

Trenches win nothing in this league. Ask the cowboys. 

1 hour ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

"The hole is bottomless? ".   McCarron won two college national championships and has played most of 4 games in the NFL.  He has a 93.6 QB rating.   that is not a bottomless hole.

 

 

The key to winning 15+ games in the NFL is having a guy who in his 4 year career has played average in 4 games. Smart!

[stuvian]

we need to get a QB this year for many reasons:

• we have the means to do so NOW
• our coach is a winner which means we'll be drafting from the bottom
• this will set up the Beane/McDermott era for years if we get it right
• without a franchise QB you have to have a near perfect roster everywhere else. With a franchise QB you don't

[Bakin]

If by some miracle we can get a QB that we want at 12

i would Trade my 22nd for extra 2nd this year and a first next year. 

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, McD said:

Who is THE guy?  Is there one, or are we just going to be fixated at a position because we just HAVE to take one?  If there's a GUARANTEE that any one of those QB's are the savior, a generational type player, then cool... I'm in.  But, I've not read ANYTHING that says this QB class is that talented.  Starters yes... a few Pro Bowls... perhaps.  But worthy of 3 #1's+?  I'm not sold. 

 

 

There's no guarantee.

 

Thing is, there's no guarantee that keeping the picks and spending them on other positions will help the team either.

 

In real life, there are no guarantees. Guarantees are for buying mass-produced consumer goods. Nothing important in life is ever guaranteed. Certainly not that a QB will be a franchise guy. Wentz wasn't a guarantee. Hell, Peyton Manning wasn't a guarantee. There's no such thing.

 

So what you do is you correctly pick your priorities. And QB should be priority number one. Then you make the moves that most greatly improve your odds of achieving that #1 priority. Which would be trading up, unless they just don't like these QBs. But they do. They've made that very clear with their actions.

17 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

 

The why did they trade their top WR?

 

 

For ammunition to trade up in the draft and get the QB they want up high.

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

As I've said before, I think the Bills wanted to dump big contracts and aging players ASAP and would take what they got for them.  They have a 3 year? 5 year? plan for getting to be a top team and these guys will not be helping them at that point.. Hence Watkins and Darby and Glenn are gone.  What they got for Glen was an improvement in 1st round draft position.  What for?  For whatever is best for the team. It is not written in stone that the only thing is for moving up for a top QB.   Maybe they might be able to move up a few notches for one of the top QB.  Maybe they stand pat and can also get a top QB at that spot.  Maybe there is a position player (MLB?) to take there. Maybe they trade down and pick up another 1st day draft slot.   I don't know how they rank the top 4-5 QB's, so I would just be guessing.  I think that there is a chance they stay pat and take BPA or even move down to get another pick.   I don't see how they HAVE TO be committed to moving  up to the top five picks. It is not written in stone.  One thing that IS TRUE is that the trades and weaknesses in several positions means there are a lot of holes to fill and that might be what they fix.

 

 

 

Dude, they're moving up for a QB if they have the chance. They might not get that chance. But that is what they want to do.

 

 

 

 

"Brandon is trying like hell to get up and get a quarterback," the NFL GM told La Canfora. 'I'm convinced he'll trade up twice more if he has to. It reminds me of (Eagles general manager) Howie (Roseman) a few years ago (when he was moving up to land Carson Wentz).'"

 

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/04/buffalo_bills_gm_brandon_beane_reportedly_trying_like_hell_to_trade_up_for_qb.html

 

 

 

If they weren't trading up, they'd have traded Glenn not for a move up but for another draft pick. 

 

Get used to it. This is likely to happen. Practically every draft-related move they've made since Beane got here has been pointed at this.

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Jasovon]

I agree, with the 12th pick we either trade up for one of the top 4 QBs or we trade down and start Peterman next year. 

[Lfod]

Op you make some good points. I disagree and still think Beane moves up in the draft again. Unless it's really not available or cost to much I feel like this new GM is going to move up.

 

You kinda have to assume top 3 are QBs. The #3 is already sold. If you want a QB you need to talk to the Browns or Giants. I'm assuming he is exploring every avenue. I know this draft isn't falling. 

 

I do agree that we might overall might not be a good team next season and and a rookie QB isn't going to change that. We all knew the team was going to have growing pains. A few mismanaged things for the new GM and HC to clean up. They might get the average to over achieve again.

 

I'm not really advocating. Just how I read it in the tea leaves. I just really am rooting for the new regime. I'm also just an average fan. I don't know if any of these QBs will be elite. I hope the new GM has a good idea and does what's best for the team.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Lfod

[formerlyofCtown]

22 hours ago, kdiggz said:

Yeah not like QB is important. Just get a guy later in the draft. Who cares right?

In a draft where the QBs we want are gone because no one wanted to trade.  You want what JP Losman.  You are correct QB is important that is why you don't just take anyone to be under center.

My dream synerio is that we trade down and still get our guy. 

I think waiting til 22 is no longer an option as that ***"""" Belicheat has positioned NE to leap frog us.  So in a trade down situation I don't think we could go lower than 15 to get the most important position in football.

[maryland-bills-fan]

11 hours ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:

 

And what is the next 17 year plan with fillers and retread QBs? It hasn't worked out, time to draft and develop our own. I think this coaching staff can hide a few of the positions but you cannot hide a QB.

     Is trading up to the top 5 spots the only way to get a QB?     Remember that "filler" or "retread QB" that we drafted with the 14th pick ?    His name was Jim Kelly.       I'm not trying to be insulting but this "we have to trade up" cult seems to be blind and deaf to anything that differs from the party line.

 

 

 

(I don't know how the image below got stuck in the post. Please ignore it.)

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by maryland-bills-fan

[maryland-bills-fan]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Dude, they're moving up for a QB if they have the chance. They might not get that chance. But that is what they want to do.

 

 

 

 

"Brandon is trying like hell to get up and get a quarterback," the NFL GM told La Canfora. 'I'm convinced he'll trade up twice more if he has to. It reminds me of (Eagles general manager) Howie (Roseman) a few years ago (when he was moving up to land Carson Wentz).'"

 

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/04/buffalo_bills_gm_brandon_beane_reportedly_trying_like_hell_to_trade_up_for_qb.html

 

 

 

If they weren't trading up, they'd have traded Glenn not for a move up but for another draft pick. 

 

Get used to it. This is likely to happen. Practically every draft-related move they've made since Beane got here has been pointed at this.

"If they weren't trading up, they'd have traded Glenn not for a move up but for another draft pick. "

 

I think that is not the only explanation for trading away Glenn.  Yes, they could have traded him for just a lower round draft pick.   But trading up for upgrading that 1st round pick was a better option for a variety of reasons, and not just solely the one you gave.  It does not LOCK the Bills only into trading further up for a QB.  Other very good reasons: 

 

(1)  they might get the QB they want or a very good QB with the #12 pick.  Every year the "experts" are saying that so-and-so is a lock for a top 5 pick, and then the guy falls out of the top half of the 1st round.  Maybe the guy they want is not one of the sainted top 4 that everyone is wetting their pants about.

 

(2) there might be a non-QB that they have their eye on at #12 and want to get him, if they can't trade up for the top QB(s) in the top 5(?).

 

(3) holding the #12 pick means that an elite, special player is available. There is a good chance that another team really has the hots for that guy and will want to trade up to your #12 to get him.   Let's say that guy or someone else at #12 is not real important to the Bills- they can get the same type of player later.  Okay, what you do is make that another team, pay through the nose for the pick and you get more for their trade up than the market value.  You don't have the chance to take advantage of this situation if you just took the lower round pick for Glenn.

 

Example:    we got a bump up of 420 draft points for trading Glenn (equivalent to the 16th pick in the 2nd round)

 Maybe we trade down again from #12  and get the first and second round picks from the team in the 17th spot.  We pick up 1350 points for a spot that was worth 1200 points. It is like gaining another 3rd round pick.    That is a good thing.

 

 

Quote

 

 

2 hours ago, Jasovon said:

I agree, with the 12th pick we either trade up for one of the top 4 QBs or we trade down and start Peterman next year. 

  Most people think that McCarron is a better option than Peterman.  If we don't go QB in the first round, then I expect they will go QB in the 2nd or 3rd round which would be an upgrade from Peterman.

Edited April 5, 2018 by maryland-bills-fan

[KDIGGZ]

38 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:

In a draft where the QBs we want are gone because no one wanted to trade.  You want what JP Losman.  You are correct QB is important that is why you don't just take anyone to be under center.

My dream synerio is that we trade down and still get our guy. 

I think waiting til 22 is no longer an option as that ***"""" Belicheat has positioned NE to leap frog us.  So in a trade down situation I don't think we could go lower than 15 to get the most important position in football.

Haha ok so they are trading down to 15 and taking who? 15 by the way is the Arizona Cardinals who also need a QB and may even be looking to trade up for one.

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

"If they weren't trading up, they'd have traded Glenn not for a move up but for another draft pick. "

 

I think that is not the only explanation for trading away Glenn.  Yes, they could have traded him for just a lower round draft pick.   But trading up for upgrading that 1st round pick was a better option for a variety of reasons, and not just solely the one you gave.  It does not LOCK the Bills only into trading further up for a QB.  Other very good reasons: 

 

(1)  they might get the QB they want or a very good QB with the #12 pick.  Every year the "experts" are saying that so-and-so is a lock for a top 5 pick, and then the guy falls out of the top half of the 1st round.  Maybe the guy they want is not one of the sainted top 4 that everyone is wetting their pants about.

 

(2) there might be a non-QB that they have their eye on at #12 and want to get him, if they can't trade up for the top QB(s) in the top 5(?).

 

(3) holding the #12 pick means that an elite, special player is available. There is a good chance that another team really has the hots for that guy and will want to trade up to your #12 to get him.   Let's say that guy or someone else at #12 is not real important to the Bills- they can get the same type of player later.  Okay, what you do is make that another team, pay through the nose for the pick and you get more for their trade up than the market value.  You don't have the chance to take advantage of this situation if you just took the lower round pick for Glenn.

 

Example:    we got a bump up of 420 draft points for trading Glenn (equivalent to the 16th pick in the 2nd round)

 Maybe we trade down again from #12  and get the first and second round picks from the team in the 17th spot.  We pick up 1350 points for a spot that was worth 1200 points. It is like gaining another 3rd round pick.    That is a good thing.

 

 

 

 

Simple question. How often did the Panthers trade up in the draft, in the higher rounds?

 

Doesn't fly, man. Beane has made it extremely clear that he's a conservative guy, financially and in terms of trades. He's a guy who understands how important extra picks are. He's showed this by respecting and valuing comp picks. He understands the analytics that say that trading up is generally ineffective and trading down is generally very effective, as shown by the Massey-Thaler study, the Harvard Sports Analysis Collective Study and frankly all of the rest of the academic literature on this subject.

 

That's the rule of thumb for smart, conservative teams. You don't give up important capital to trade up ... wait for it ... except if you're going for a franchise QB. It's what the Panthers have always gone by. The Bills started building up their draft ammunition BEFORE the season last year. Not after.

 

They knew it was going to be a good year for QBs. LB, WR, DT and their other big needs weren't forecast to be good crops, and still aren't. 

 

Again, sorry, this doesn't fly. And this is classic ... you're trying out the argument that we traded up so that we could trade down? Oh, Lord, dude, you are getting very very desperate.

 

And to repeat ... because you keep ignoring this for reasons that are very very clear ...

 

 

"Brandon is trying like hell to get up and get a quarterback," the NFL GM told La Canfora. 'I'm convinced he'll trade up twice more if he has to. It reminds me of (Eagles general manager) Howie (Roseman) a few years ago (when he was moving up to land Carson Wentz).'"

   

 

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/04/buffalo_bills_gm_brandon_beane_reportedly_trying_like_hell_to_trade_up_for_qb.html

 

 

Every move they've made since Beane has become GM has been aimed at this. They all fit this narrative, whereas no other narrative fits all of them. If they'd wanted to build up the team they'd have kept Gilmore or Darby or Gaines or Brown or especially Cordy Glenn to give them two very strong tackles. They want to make it possible for them to trade up high for a QB. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Thurman#1

[billsredneck1]

On 4/4/2018 at 8:12 AM, GunnerBill said:

If you get to a situation where the Browns go QB at #1, the Giants do at #2, the Jets do at #3.... the Browns refuse to trade out of #4 and then Broncos go QB at #5 I would happily trade back from #12.  I just don't think there is any chance that the scenario plays out.  

in this case, i would lock up rudolph.

[dlonce]

2 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

"If they weren't trading up, they'd have traded Glenn not for a move up but for another draft pick. "

 

I think that is not the only explanation for trading away Glenn.  Yes, they could have traded him for just a lower round draft pick.   But trading up for upgrading that 1st round pick was a better option for a variety of reasons, and not just solely the one you gave.  It does not LOCK the Bills only into trading further up for a QB.  Other very good reasons: 

 

(1)  they might get the QB they want or a very good QB with the #12 pick.  Every year the "experts" are saying that so-and-so is a lock for a top 5 pick, and then the guy falls out of the top half of the 1st round.  Maybe the guy they want is not one of the sainted top 4 that everyone is wetting their pants about.

 

(2) there might be a non-QB that they have their eye on at #12 and want to get him, if they can't trade up for the top QB(s) in the top 5(?).

 

(3) holding the #12 pick means that an elite, special player is available. There is a good chance that another team really has the hots for that guy and will want to trade up to your #12 to get him.   Let's say that guy or someone else at #12 is not real important to the Bills- they can get the same type of player later.  Okay, what you do is make that another team, pay through the nose for the pick and you get more for their trade up than the market value.  You don't have the chance to take advantage of this situation if you just took the lower round pick for Glenn.

 

Example:    we got a bump up of 420 draft points for trading Glenn (equivalent to the 16th pick in the 2nd round)

 Maybe we trade down again from #12  and get the first and second round picks from the team in the 17th spot.  We pick up 1350 points for a spot that was worth 1200 points. It is like gaining another 3rd round pick.    That is a good thing.

 

 

 

  Most people think that McCarron is a better option than Peterman.  If we don't go QB in the first round, then I expect they will go QB in the 2nd or 3rd round which would be an upgrade from Peterman.

 

Sure, one can make an argument stating there could be other reasons we traded Glenn to move up 9 spots, but you have to see the reality of that trade. You normally do not see swaps with a player to move up weeks before the draft.

Its obvious to everyone why Beane opted to move up instead of taking a second rounder for Glenn,because that’s the value.

 

I am in agreement with you on building our lines, just not how we build it.The argument our line was bad doesn’t hold water.

I believe it was Pro Football Focus that claimed we had the second best line in the league last year. The stats they used we’re indicative of how a line should be ranked.Tyrod Taylor was a detriment to the line with his one read and take off mentality.

 

This is the year to get a QB. Beanies moves starting with the KC trade last year point towards our attempt. Trading Tyrod is another indicator,add in the Glenn trade as well.

 

We have been through this build the team before the QB comes routine before, it hasn’t worked. We could fill holes with busts in any position,there are no givens when drafting. I’d prefer a 50/50 chance at the most important position on the team,instead of drafting a LB that also has a bust rate. It’s a vicious cycle,build your team first, but by the time you get a QB those picks are ready for raises or they leave for free agency,then back to square one.

 

Our cap for next year is closer to 100 million,this was designed by management for the whole purpose of building that team with your supposed franchise guy in place. Doing it the other way around is difficult because it forces you to find a QB,even if there are none available. This is the year where really good QBs are available,not next year. 

Is it an absolute guarantee? Hell no, nothing is, but people with knowledge about football say this is a great class,so I defer to them.

 

The time is now. I hope Beanie can get it done,I know he’s trying like hell.

Edited April 5, 2018 by dlonce

[K-9]

3 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

     Is trading up to the top 5 spots the only way to get a QB?     Remember that "filler" or "retread QB" that we drafted with the 14th pick ?    His name was Jim Kelly.       I'm not trying to be insulting but this "we have to trade up" cult seems to be blind and deaf to anything that differs from the party line.

 

 

 

(I don't know how the image below got stuck in the post. Please ignore it.)

 

Kelly was a “filler” or “retread” QB? What does this mean? 

[maryland-bills-fan]

5 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Kelly was a “filler” or “retread” QB? What does this mean? 

Somebody was saying that we HAD TO trade up from #12 to get a QB, otherwise we would just be sitting around with "filler" or "retread" QB's.    Kelly was our second pick at #14 in that first round and turned out okay.   It was also another "great draft year for quarterbacks".

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:Somebody was saying that we HAD TO trade up from #12 to get a QB, otherwise we would just be sitting around with "filler" or "retread" QB's.    Kelly was our second pick at #14 in that first round and turned out okay.   It was also another "great draft year for quarterbacks".

It’s worth noting that Kelly fell to 14 because of questions surrounding his surgically repaired shoulder; some doctors were convinced his career was in jeopardy after that operation. 

 

Is there a chance a top prospect falls to 12. Yes. Is it likely given the number of teams ahead of 12 that need QBs? No. Sometimes you have to do what it takes to ensure you can get an elite prospect. 

[maryland-bills-fan]

I think the expense of moving up to the top 3 spots is too high (basically this year's draft and some of next year's).  There has to be some sense of balance between needing a QB and wrecking the incoming new, cheap rookie players for the this and part of next year. 

 

The Browns will likely go QB and DE/RB so the highest available spot is #5/#6 where  it will likely cost both firsts and a second/lower level pick. If we can swing a deal there and if the right guy (not just the last of the 4 standing) is there, it looks like worth a shot.   The unknowns are the Giants, Colts and Bronco's wanting a QB.

[K-9]

16 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I think the expense of moving up to the top 3 spots is too high (basically this year's draft and some of next year's).  There has to be some sense of balance between needing a QB and wrecking the incoming new, cheap rookie players for the this and part of next year. 

 

The Browns will likely go QB and DE/RB so the highest available spot is #5/#6 where  it will likely cost both firsts and a second/lower level pick. If we can swing a deal there and if the right guy (not just the last of the 4 standing) is there, it looks like worth a shot.   The unknowns are the Giants, Colts and Bronco's wanting a QB.

Yes, the price is high. But not as high as not securing the single most important position in sports for years to come. 

[maryland-bills-fan]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Simple question. How often did the Panthers trade up in the draft, in the higher rounds?

 

He's showed this by respecting and valuing comp picks. He understands the analytics that say that trading up is generally ineffective and trading down is generally very effective, as shown by the Massey-Thaler study, the Harvard Sports Analysis Collective Study and frankly all of the rest of the academic literature on this subject.

 

That's the rule of thumb for smart, conservative teams. You don't give up important capital to trade up ... wait for it ... except if you're going for a franchise QB. It's what the Panthers have always gone by. The Bills started building up their draft ammunition BEFORE the season last year. Not after.

 

They knew it was going to be a good year for QBs. LB, WR, DT and their other big needs weren't forecast to be good crops, and still aren't. 

 

Again, sorry, this doesn't fly. And this is classic ... you're trying out the argument that we traded up so that we could trade down? Oh, Lord, dude, you are getting very very desperate.

 

And to repeat ... because you keep ignoring this for reasons that are very very clear ...

 

 

"Brandon is trying like hell to get up and get a quarterback," the NFL GM told La Canfora. 'I'm convinced he'll trade up twice more if he has to. It reminds me of (Eagles general manager) Howie (Roseman) a few years ago (when he was moving up to land Carson Wentz).'"

   

 

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/04/buffalo_bills_gm_brandon_beane_reportedly_trying_like_hell_to_trade_up_for_qb.html

 

 

Every move they've made since Beane has become GM has been aimed at this. They all fit this narrative, whereas no other narrative fits all of them. If they'd wanted to build up the team they'd have kept Gilmore or Darby or Gaines or Brown or especially Cordy Glenn to give them two very strong tackles. They want to make it possible for them to trade up high for a QB. 

Well I never said we were trading up in order to trade down.  I did say that was one of the options with a higher pick.  (By the way, you might have to admit that teams with higher picks DO sometimes trade down).   And it is also true that you might be able to get someone to overpay for that higher pick.

 

Now, could you please identify that NFL GM that your have in red above?  What is his name? How does he know what Beane  is going to do?  Is he looking into his ear or wiretapping his office?   I guess it is just what we used to call a Shxxhouse rumor and they are all over the place as clickbait.

 

By the way, do you want to change the following statement?    "Doesn't fly, man. Beane has made it extremely clear that he's a conservative guy, financially and in terms of trades. He's a guy who understands how important extra picks are. "     It is nice to see you agree that Beane is a conservative guy.  Would a conservative guy bet the farm on an unproven rookie in a position where there is a 50% fail rate?  Hmmmm.   Also, I'm glad to see you agree he understands how "important extra picks are."    He might even think that you should spread your risks, rather then risk everything on one roll of the dice.  Glad to see we agree on all this.